• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

NM Supreme Court: refusing to photograph Gay wedding a Violation of Human Rights.

Wiseone said:
On the individual level I can see how your argument makes sense, after all its not like these person is the only wedding photographer in town. However these laws barring discrimination of customers based on things like religion, race, sexuality, etc don't exist because only a few folks discriminate, they exist because of what used to be the case for some people. As you know wholesale discrimination used to be norm through all levels of society, without these laws the government would have never been able to compel equality as we know it today on many formerly racist states/cities/towns, etc. Because while if one guy doesn't want to sell you a product or let you in his store because you're black, its not really a big deal to you if every other store owner will let you shop, but if all store owners decline your business than suddenly you are an unequal citizen who has had your rights violated by your fellow citizens.

That is where these laws come from.
Click to expand...

Actually things like this overshoot the mark.

What you are talking about is the result of Jim Crow laws, which were just as bad.

Forcing a business to not give custom is no different and no better than forcing a business to give custom - it violates the same right.
 
Wiseone said:
The reasons these laws exist was because of systemic racism that would not allow certain individuals from participate in society on the same basis as everyone else. Those laws have been expanded to include other parts of society often subject to discrimination, including homosexuals. Now like I've said, a systemic problem is not the same as an individual problem, or in other words one business refusing you is not the same as all businesses refusing you, however the law can only be applied to the individual and instead of trying to draw an abritrary line to decide how many businesses can descriminate because its considered an affront to an individual's rights we just say that any discrimination is wrong.

Personally I'd go find someone else rather than go to court, but I also see the wisdom and pragmatism in just outlawing any descrimination rather than allowing some of it until it becomes such an inconvinence to be considered as having made a group of people second class citzens.
Click to expand...

Gay =/= Race Argument. Not the same thing at all.
 
brothern said:
It's exactly what you're contending. That the photographer has the right to discriminately pick and choose who she provides services to on the basis of the person's character, and that the person has absolutely no recourse.
Click to expand...

On the basis of ANY REASON, actually, and yes, she absolutely does.

And that's not true about recourse. Hire another photographer. Buy a camera. Use your smart phone. Use your freedom of speech afforded to you from your natural human right to liberty to post about the photographer on social media. Etc.
 
davidtaylorjr said:
Gay =/= Race Argument. Not the same thing at all.
Click to expand...

I'm comparing one kind of discimination against another kind of discrimination, its pretty damn similar...

I don't think you like the comparison because its entirely justified and destroys any argument against it, after all if discrimination against a race is the same as discrimination against a sexuality, and there's nothing wrong with discrimination against a sexuality based on one's personal beliefs then therefore there's nothing wrong with discrimination against a race based on one's personal beliefs. Therefore the two have to be kept seperate, to admit that they are the same is to say that either racial discrimination is OK if that's what you believe OR that there's nothing justifed about discrimination based on sexuality.
 
davidtaylorjr said:
Then why don't they find like-minded individuals and start their own business? Quite frankly, if I was forced to photograph a Gay Wedding, I probably would do poor work because my heart wouldn't be in it. (Yes, I do photography) Why don't they just find another photographer?
Click to expand...

I sure wouldn't want to do a fundy evangelical wedding made up of creationists with no booze. Snake handlers OTOH now that would be cool to do!

I'm a photographer too David.
 
winston53660 said:
I sure wouldn't want to do a fundy evangelical wedding made up of creationists with no booze. Snake handlers OTOH now that would be cool to do!

I'm a photographer too David.
Click to expand...

Well, the idea is to invite all the folks you don't like to snake handling wedding while you hold the regular wedding elsewhere. :mrgreen:
 
What a sad sad thing, they do have a law protection sexual orientation but it should be removed. This violates religious freedom and freedom of speech of the owners. I hope this kind of poison doesn't spread to other states.
 
TiredOfLife said:
That's not true either. I can't demand that you photograph my **** fights, they're illegal, but my gay wedding, it's a wedding and it's legal.
Click to expand...

You can't demand private business to do a damn thing...well, until this.

Just a step closer to fascism.
 
Gipper said:
You can't demand private business to do a damn thing...well, until this.

Just a step closer to fascism.
Click to expand...

I really hope this can be appealed and struck down. It disturbs me greatly.
 
digsbe said:
I really hope this can be appealed and struck down. It disturbs me greatly.
Click to expand...

I'm with ya, man. We have laws and a Constitution that protects our rights to be asswipes. If this guy didn't want to perform a job based on principle, he deserves to have that right respected as a proprietor.

If you want no input into how things go, join the public sector.
 
Gipper said:
I'm with ya, man. We have laws and a Constitution that protects our rights to be asswipes. If this guy didn't want to perform a job based on principle, he deserves to have that right respected as a proprietor.

If you want no input into how things go, join the public sector.
Click to expand...

I agree, I'm fine with this had it been a state institution, but when it's private they are violating the religious beliefs of the owner and even though the law protects religion and sexual orientation it is essentially saying sexuality is "more equal" and "more protected" which really isn't equality, it's an imposition of morals and a violation of freedom.
 
digsbe said:
I agree, I'm fine with this had it been a state institution, but when it's private they are violating the religious beliefs of the owner and even though the law protects religion and sexual orientation it is essentially saying sexuality is "more equal" and "more protected" which really isn't equality, it's an imposition of morals and a violation of freedom.
Click to expand...

The problem I have is this: How does this ruling not lead to conscription? If you can answer this 64,000 dollar question, I'd really appreciate it.
 
I don't get how the photographer not wanting a client is a violation of any bodies rights. Come on there is more than one photographer in the world. I think its retarded of the photographer to cloud professionalism with pseudo religious objections. All the more reason to skip over them in the phone book. Really bad for business when you don't do your job because you don't agree with your clients sexual preference.

But as far as it goes the photographer has the right to be terrible. I am more for boycotts than amusing the legal system.
 
winston53660 said:
I sure wouldn't want to do a fundy evangelical wedding made up of creationists with no booze. Snake handlers OTOH now that would be cool to do!

I'm a photographer too David.
Click to expand...

Good then I will let you shoot the Gay "Weddings." ;)
 
cpwill said:
Precedent Alert.
Click to expand...

I'm actually fine with this decision. In fact it may be one of the best possible outcomes of this whole thing because now we can sue gays for not patronizing our businesses!!
 
CLAX1911 said:
I don't get how the photographer not wanting a client is a violation of any bodies rights. Come on there is more than one photographer in the world. I think its retarded of the photographer to cloud professionalism with pseudo religious objections. All the more reason to skip over them in the phone book. Really bad for business when you don't do your job because you don't agree with your clients sexual preference.

But as far as it goes the photographer has the right to be terrible. I am more for boycotts than amusing the legal system.
Click to expand...

The bolded was my point. There's always going to be someone willing to do it, because money talks in the majority of cases.
 
CLAX1911 said:
Making him a photographer and you more or less a judge with a camera and no jurisdiction.
Click to expand...

Not really, just standing for my morals and religious beliefs. God comes before being "politically correct".
 
Lutherf said:
I'm actually fine with this decision. In fact it may be one of the best possible outcomes of this whole thing because now we can sue gays for not patronizing our businesses!!
Click to expand...

Hmmmmm......
 
davidtaylorjr said:
Not really, just standing for my morals and religious beliefs. God comes before being "politically correct".
Click to expand...

Taking a picture of a gay person is a sin now?
What is morally wrong about taking pictures? Do you see politics in shooting photos? How sad it must be to live in your world.
 
lizzie said:
The bolded was my point. There's always going to be someone willing to do it, because money talks in the majority of cases.
Click to expand...

Really! Indeed.

On top of that I would tell all my friends not to hire them. Most of my friends support me so they wouldn't. That is worse than forcing them by law.
 
CLAX1911 said:
Taking a picture of a gay person is a sin now?
What is morally wrong about taking pictures? Do you see politics in shooting photos? How sad it must be to live in your world.
Click to expand...

You're missing the point. It's the event itself they object to particpating in, in any manner. Like if you were asked (hired) to do the advert photos for an anti-gay event.
 
CLAX1911 said:
Taking a picture of a gay person is a sin now?
What is morally wrong about taking pictures? Do you see politics in shooting photos? How sad it must be to live in your world.
Click to expand...

It would be supporting that lifestyle, and supporting Gay Marriage as I have already said. It's not simply shooting photos. I wouldn't even be comfortable attending the event much less participating.
 
clownboy said:
You're missing the point. It's the event itself they object to particpating in, in any manner. Like if you were asked (hired) to do the advert photos for an anti-gay event.
Click to expand...

That isn't what he said. He implied that it was morally wrong to photograph people based on their sexual orientation.
 
davidtaylorjr said:
It would be supporting that lifestyle, and supporting Gay Marriage as I have already said. It's not simply shooting photos.
I wouldn't even be comfortable attending the event much less participating
Click to expand...
.
Click to expand...




In that case, stay away and MYOB.

You do your thing and let them do their thing.




"Tolerance is giving to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself." ~ Robert Green Ingersoll
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom